Share This Story!

On Syria deal, lawmakers voice caution, hope, frustration

Congressional Democrats on Saturday began a cautious embrace of a new deal between the United States and Russia to destroy Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, suggesting that it validated President Obama's

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats on Saturday began a cautious embrace of a new deal between the United States and Russia to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, suggesting that it validated President Obama's threat of military action.

"Thanks to President Obama's steadfast leadership, we are making significant progress in our efforts to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, a pillar of our national security, through diplomatic efforts," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement after the deal was announced.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who had been drafting a resolution in the House to authorize the president to launch limited military strikes against Syria, said via Twitter: "This could be a big victory for President Obama. His policy worked."

This echoed a Democratic theme last week when the U.S.-Russian talks had begun, essentially that by threatening the use of force and then asking Congress for approval, Obama had forced Syria and Russia to the bargaining table for a non-military solution to eliminating Syrian chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, Republicans, including Rand Paul of Kentucky, a potential 2016 presidential contender, dismissed that narrative, arguing that it was their demand for congressional consultation that stopped Obama from launching a war with no clear goals or strategies.

Paul said in a televised statement last week — after President Obama announced the talks with Russia: "The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details. But one thing is for certain, the chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn't be looking at a possible solution today."

In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said they were concerned the agreement would be seen as an "act of provocative weakness on America's part."

"Without a U.N. Security Council Resolution under Chapter 7 authority, which threatens the use of force for non-compliance by the Assad regime, this framework agreement is meaningless," the statement added. "Assad will use the months and months afforded to him to delay and deceive the world."

On Saturday, the U.S. and Russia announced a tentative deal calling for Syria to disclose details of its chemical weapons stockpile in the next week. International inspectors would be on the ground in Syria by November and the weapons would be destroyed next year. The deal also calls for a United Nations Security Council resolution that would establish consequences for Syrian non-compliance. The U.S. believes those consequences would include the use of force, though the deal with Russia is not explicit.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and an early supporter of military strikes against Syria, said, "Absent the threat of force, it's unclear to me how Syrian compliance will be possible under the terms of any agreement. I'm still reviewing the details and believe Syria's willingness to follow through is very much an open question, but I remain supportive of a strong diplomatic solution to Syria's use of chemical weapons."

Corker added: "The administration's handling of this crisis has hurt U.S. credibility, so it's vital that going forward the president articulate how his actions protect our national interests in Syria and the region."

And Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, a senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted her dismay: "Int'l inspectors in Syria in Nov? Assad must be held accountable now. No more further delays!"

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, who last week had said she did not support military action, tweeted Saturday that the U.S.-Russian deal appeared to be a "strong step forward." Gabbard's opposition to Obama's plan for military action was seen as significant because she is a veteran who represents Obama's home state.